Dismissed

P.Mani, S/o.Palani v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2016WP/39335/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In six connected writ petitions filed in Madras High Court regarding requests for police protection to conduct "Adal Padal" programs in temple festivals, the single judge dismissed all petitions. The court relied on a superintendent of police report detailing caste clashes, obscenity, and disorder caused by such events, citing Supreme Court precedent that such matters should be left to executive d

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioners seeking direction for police protection for "Adal Padal" programmes in temple festivals were dismissed.

P.Mani, S/o.Palani Vs The Inspector of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON: 18.11.2016

¶4

DELIVERED ON: 24.11.2016

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶7

W.P. Nos.39335, 39630, 39631, 40479, 40480 and 40481 of 2016

¶8

P. Mani J. Ramasamy N. Govindaraj A. Dharmalingam 2016 N. Sadhakumar S. Dhanavenkatesh

¶9

The Inspector of Police Pelukurichi Police Station Rasipuram Taluk Namakkal District

¶10

Petitioner in W.P. No.39335 of 2016 Petitioner in W.P. No.39630 of 2016 Petitioner in W.P. No.39631 of 2016 Petitioner in W.P. No.40479 of

¶11

Petitioner in W.P. No.40480 of 2016 Petitioner in W.P. No.40481 of 2016 vs.

¶12

Respondent in W.P. No.39335 of 2016

¶13

The Inspector of Police Jedarpalayam Police Station Jedarpalayam Namakkal District

¶14

Respondent in W.P. No.39630 of 2016

¶15

The Inspector of Police Modakurichi Police Station Modakurichi Erode District

¶16

Respondent in W.P. No.39631 of 2016

¶17

The Inspector of Police Modakurichi Police Station Modakurichi Erode District

¶18

Respondent in W.P. No.40479 of 2016

¶19

The Inspect of Police Omalur Police Station Omalur Salem District

¶20

Respondent in W.P. No.40480 of 2016

¶21

¶22

The Inspector of Police Modakurichi Police Station Modakurichi Erode District

¶23

Respondent in W.P. No.40481 of 2016

¶24

Prayer in W.P. No.39335 of 2016:

¶25

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to give police protection and permission to conduct the cultural programme in Podinayakanpatti Singalanthapuram Chinna Mariamman Koil Thiruvizha, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District on 12.11.2016 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2016.

¶26

Prayer in W.P. No.39630 of 2016:

¶27

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2016 to give police protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in Kothamangalam Arulmigu Sree Kamatchi Amman, Periyasamy and Bommusamy Temple Festival, Paramathi Taluk, Namakkal District on 20.11.2016.

¶28

Prayer in W.P. No.39631 of 2016:

¶29

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2016 to give police protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in Modakurichi Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple Festival, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District on 01.12.2016.

¶30

Prayer in W.P. No.40479 of 2016:

¶31

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2016 to give police protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in Modakurichi Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple Festival, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District on 29.11.2016.

¶32

¶33

Prayer in W.P. No.40480 of 2016:

¶34

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2016 to give police protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in Palpakki Arulmigu Sree Kaliamman and Mariamman Temple Kumbabishekam Festival, Omalur Taluk, Salem District on 03.12.2016.

¶35

Prayer in W.P. No.40481 of 2016:

¶36

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2016 to give police protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in Modakurichi Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple Festival, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District on 02.12.2016.

¶37

For petitioner in W.P. No.39335 of 2016 Mr. R.P. Murugan Raja

¶38

For petitioner in W.P. Nos.39630, 39631 and 40479 to Mr. A. Sathishkumar 40481 of 2016 For respondent in Mr. C. Emalias all the W.P.s Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶39

COMMON ORDER

¶40

The issue involved in all the present six writ petitions being common, all the cases at hand are considered and decided by this common order.

¶41

¶42

2 The petitioners in these writ petitions seek a direction to the respondent police to give protection and permission to conduct Adal Padal programme in the respective temple festivals on various dates by considering their representations.

¶43

3 Heard M/s. A. Sakthishkumar and R.P. Murugan Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶44

4 Aadal- Paadal (dance & song) writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the police to permit organisers of temple festivals to conduct cultural programmes in connection with the temple festivities in public. The ongoing trend is that after giving a representation to the local police, the organiser would file a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to consider his representation and this Court would issue directions as prayed for.

¶45

5 While this was going on for quite some time, this Court noticed a spurt in such writ petitions from Namakkal District. This aroused suspicion in the mind of this Court and therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, was directed to be present before this Court to explain what really happens at the ground level.

¶46

¶47

6 Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court,

¶48

Mr.S.Maheswaran, Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, appeared before this Court on 11.11.2016 and on the directions of this Court, he filed a status report through Mr. V. Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram, on 18.11.2016 and a reading of the same reveals several hitherto unknown startling facts, which reflect only a very sorry state of affairs. It may be apposite to extract a few paragraphs of the status report verbatim:

¶49

“7 I submit that in all the Adal Padal Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court, it is ordered that consider the representation of the petitioner but the petitioner along with the advocates and 15 to 20 villagers approached the Inspector and argued with him that the Hon'ble High Court permitted to conduct Adal Padal and created tension in the police station.

¶50

8 It is submitted that more than four or five Hon'ble High Court orders have been obtained from Hon'ble High Court by filing separate petitions by various persons on caste basis for one and the same temple function in different date and each caste has been conducting the Adal Padal to show their supremacy before in the villagers. In a village, various caste people are living and all the caste people have been watching the Adal Padal , if anything goes wrong in the gathering, it will create a caste clash and law and order problem in the Adal Padal function 6 different orders of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.37117/16, W.P. No.38114/16, W.P. No.38513/16, W.P. No.38512/16, W.P. No.38743/2016, W.P. No.38514/16 have been obtained in different names for the Singalandhapuram Santhapettai Mariyamman Temple festival for the dates of 06.11.2016, 07.11.2016, 08.11.2016, 11.11.2016, 10.11.2016, 09.11.2016 in all the petitions, petitioners names are different, but, the advocate is same for all the petitions.”

¶51

¶52

7 During the hearing of the cases on 18.11.2016, Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor handed over those different orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions referred to in paragraph no.8 of the status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal.

¶53

8 It is seen that all those orders were passed by me on different dates and at this juncture, I have no hesitation in recording not only my anguish, but also, my profound regret for having passed those orders. I had passed those orders placing implicit faith in the representation of the counsel. One has to learn from previous bad experiences and I am willing to.

¶54

9 In the status report, at paragraph nos.9 and 10, it is stated as

¶55

follows:

¶56

“9. It is submitted that in most of the Adal padal programmes, obscene dance has been performed by the dancers. Women dancers are wearing 'two pieces dresses' the youths in drunken mood also danced inside the crowd in which wordy quarrel arose in the crowd and resulted in caste clash and peace in the village ruins after the Adal padal .

¶57

It is submitted that the Adal padal programmes have been conducted by violating the Hon'ble High Court order/police conditions throughout full night. So the students, aged people, children and ladies have been affected by the Adal Padal programmes, if police intervened to stop the programme in the stipulated time, the agitated mob quarelled with police and created a law and order in the villages.”

¶58

¶59

10 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police present in the Court Hall, has the video clipping of the dance and that he is willing to play the same for the satisfaction of the Court.

¶60

11 Therefore, the matter was taken up at 4.45 p.m. in my chambers. In the presence of M/s. A. Sathishkumar and R.P. Murugan Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Rajarathinam, learned Public Prosecutor of the State, Mr.Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram, played the video clippings of one such A adal Paadal programme and after watching the same, everyone had no option, but, to unanimously agree that it surpassed the very definition of the words “obscenity” and “vulgarity”.

¶61

12 That apart, the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, in his status report, has stated that he has received a representation dated 11.11.2016 from Tamil Nadu Thiraippada Medai Nadana Kalaignargal Nala Sangam , Salem, in which, it has requested for a ban on such Aadal Padal programmes as that had resulted in unemployment to genuine folk artistes in the countryside.

¶62

13 The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka and another vs.

¶63

¶64

Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia [(2004) 4 SCC 684], has held that Court

¶65

should not interfere in the decision making process of the police in matters relating to law and order problems and that it should be best left at the hands of the Executive to take decisions on merits on a case-tocase basis. The petitioners herein also do no have any fundamental right to organise such programmes in public, especially, under the guise of conducting temple festivals.

¶66

In view of the foregoing discussion, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.

24.11.2016

cad

1 The Inspector of Police Pelukurichi Police Station Rasipuram Taluk Namakkal District

¶72

2 The Inspector of Police Jedarpalayam Police Station Jedarpalayam Namakkal District

¶73

3 The Inspector of Police Modakurichi Police Station Modakurichi Erode District

¶74

4 The Inspect of Police Omalur Police Station Omalur Salem District

¶75

5 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai - 600 104

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

cad

Common order in W.P. Nos.39335, 39630, 39631, 40479, 40480 and 40481 of 2016

¶80

24.11.2016

¶81

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.Mani, S/o.Palani v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani, S/o.Palani v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.G.Santhosh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Vijayalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Joseph Samuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Naganathan, Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Na.Pushparaj Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

T.Lakshmi Vs State Rep by